{"id":25503,"date":"2010-07-16T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-07-15T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/liyakat-ali-vs-smt-chunni-devi-on-16-july-2010"},"modified":"2018-02-14T04:05:39","modified_gmt":"2018-02-13T22:35:39","slug":"liyakat-ali-vs-smt-chunni-devi-on-16-july-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/liyakat-ali-vs-smt-chunni-devi-on-16-july-2010","title":{"rendered":"Liyakat Ali vs Smt Chunni Devi on 16 July, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Allahabad High Court<\/div>\n
Liyakat Ali vs Smt Chunni Devi on 16 July, 2010<\/div>\n
                                        -1-\n\n                                                                       Reserved\n\n        Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 600 of 2009\n\nPetitioner :- Liyakat Ali\nRespondent :- Smt Chunni Devi\nPetitioner Counsel :- Rajeev Kr. Sinha\n                                     ***********\nHon'ble Devi Prasad Singh,J.\n<\/pre>\n
Hon’ble Dr. Satish Chandra,J.\n<\/p>\n
              (Delivered by Hon’ble Dr. Satish Chandra, J)
\n      This appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988<\/p>\n
against the judgment and order dated 27.01.2009 passed by Motor Accident<\/p>\n
Claims Tribunal, Unnao in Claim Petition No. 117 of 2001 whereby an award<\/p>\n
of Rs.1,18,850\/- was awarded against the appellant.<\/p>\n
      The brief facts of the case in narrow compass are that on 02.12.2000,<\/p>\n
one Sri Arvind Kumar was going on scooter to see off his relative. When he<\/p>\n
reached near Hyderabad Paisara, one Tractor No. U.P. 35-B 1649 took a<\/p>\n
sharp turn. The Iron Rods loaded in the trolley (trailer) attached to the tractor<\/p>\n
in question hits the deceased Arvind Kumar, who died on the spot. The FIR<\/p>\n
was lodged. The Tractor was insured but trolley was not insured. So, the<\/p>\n
liability was fixed against the owner of the Tractor i.e. appellant by the Motor<\/p>\n
Accident Claims Tribunal for Rs.1,18,850\/-. Being aggrieved, he filed the<\/p>\n
present appeal.\n<\/p>\n
      During the course of argument, learned counsel for the appellant<\/p>\n
submits that the trailer is the part of the tractor and tractor was duly insured.<\/p>\n
Independently, the tractor or trolley is not of any use. With the tractor, some<\/p>\n
equipments or trolley will have to be attached for the purpose of agricultural<\/p>\n
activity. He further submits that trailer\/trolley falls within the definition of the<\/p>\n
vehicles, as such, it is an attachment made to the prime mover of tractor<\/p>\n
and it has no independent driving system. Therefore, it is not required to be
\n                                        -2-<\/span><\/p>\n
insured under the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and insurance<\/p>\n
company is liable to pay the compensation.\n<\/p>\n
      According to the appellant’s counsel, deceased was driving the<\/p>\n
scooter without holding any valid license. He also submits that at the time of<\/p>\n
accident, the tractor was used to transport the bricks and iron rods for the<\/p>\n
purpose of construction of Pakki Boring in a room to secure the boring<\/p>\n
equipments for irrigation purposes. So, the tractor was used for agricultural<\/p>\n
purposes. Its driver was having the valid driving license to drive the tractor<\/p>\n
and at the time of accident, the tractor was duly insured. So, the liability will<\/p>\n
have to be fixed against the insurance company. He relied on the ratio laid<\/p>\n
down in the cases of Nagashetty v. United India Insurance Company<\/p>\n
Ltd.<\/a>; 2001 A.C.J. 1441; 2001 (3) T.A.C. 511 and also a judgement in<\/p>\n
the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. J. Kotiratnama, 2000 (3) An.<\/p>\n
W.R. 91.\n<\/p>\n
      On the other hand, learned counsel for the insurance company<\/p>\n
submits that the tractor was insured but trolley was not insured. No premium<\/p>\n
was paid for the trolley as per Section 61 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.<\/p>\n
He further submits that the tractor was insured only for the purpose of<\/p>\n
agricultural use but the appellant was carrying the bricks and iron rods in the<\/p>\n
trolley. So, it is the violation of the terms and conditions of the policy. Again,<\/p>\n
he repeated that the trolley is not the part of the tractor as no premium for<\/p>\n
the trolley was paid to the insurance company.\n<\/p>\n
      We have heard both the parties at length and gone through the<\/p>\n
material available on record.\n<\/p>\n
      There is no dispute regarding the accident or amount of<\/p>\n
compensation. The only dispute is that who will pay the compensation i.e.<\/p>\n
the owner of the tractor or the insurance company.\n<\/p>\n
                                      -3-<\/span><\/p>\n
      In the instant case, the tractor in question (No. U.P. 35-B 1649) was<\/p>\n
duly insured with the insurance company. Admittedly, no separate premium<\/p>\n
was paid for the trolley. This was the specific defense taken by the<\/p>\n
insurance company.\n<\/p>\n
      The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance<\/p>\n
Company v. Chinnamma and others<\/a>; 2004 (3) TAC 577 SC defines the<\/p>\n
meaning of tractor and trailer, which reads as under:<\/p>\n
                “Tractor:    ‘tractor’ means a motor vehicle which is not
\n                itself constructed to carry any load (other than
\n                equipment used for the purpose of population); but
\n                excludes a road roller.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                Trailer:     trailer means by any vehicle, other than a
\n                semi-trailer and a side-car, drawn or intended to be
\n                drawn by a motor vehicles.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      In the case of Parsottambhai Kanbhai v. Panchiben alias<\/p>\n
Ratanben, 1977 A.C.J. 441 Hon’ble Gujarat High Court made an<\/p>\n
observation that “As the trailer is included in the expression motor<\/p>\n
vehicle, it was required to be insured.\n<\/p>\n
      The word ‘trailer’ was separately defined from the inclusive definition,<\/p>\n
which was made. In such an event, the meaning assigned to the respective<\/p>\n
words has to be culled out. As can be seen from the various definitions like<\/p>\n
articulated vehicles, contract carriage, goods       carriage, heavy goods<\/p>\n
vehicle, heavy passenger, motor vehicle, invalid carriage, maxi cab, motor<\/p>\n
cab, motor car, motor cycle, omnibus, private service vehicles, they were<\/p>\n
defined as motor vehicles including tractor, but the trailer was defined as<\/p>\n
motor vehicle, which was intended to drawn by a motor vehicle. Thus, it is<\/p>\n
evident that it is not a mechanically propelled vehicle either power of<\/p>\n
propulsion is transmitted from external or internal sources. Therefore, even
\n                                        -4-<\/span><\/p>\n
though, Section 2 (46) embraces trailer within the definition of ‘motor vehicle’<\/p>\n
or ‘vehicle’, but further distinction has to be drawn between the vehicle and<\/p>\n
motor vehicle and that distinction has to be carved out on the basis of the<\/p>\n
specific definition given to the word trailer. Therefore, while all the motor<\/p>\n
vehicles may fall within the definition of vehicles, but, all the vehicles are not<\/p>\n
motor vehicles. The trailer as such is an attachment made to the prime<\/p>\n
mover either a tractor or a mechanical contrivance and it has no<\/p>\n
independent propulsion. The trailer always is a detachable container, which<\/p>\n
does not have any independent driving system. Its movements are<\/p>\n
dependent on the prime mover, such as tractor, motor vehicle etc.<\/p>\n
      Hence, insurance of trailer is not a mandatory requirement under the<\/p>\n
provisions of Section 146 of Motor Vehicles Act and if the prime<\/p>\n
mover\/motor vehicle\/tractor is insured and the negligence of the driver of the<\/p>\n
said motor vehicle is established, the compensation is payable by the owner<\/p>\n
of the tractor and insurer irrespective of the fact whether the victim suffers<\/p>\n
injury with the tractor or with the trailer. Therefore, we are of the view that in<\/p>\n
such cases, the insurance company is also liable along with the owner of<\/p>\n
the tractor\/trailer to pay compensation.\n<\/p>\n
      Further, in the case of United India Insurance Company Ltd. v.<\/p>\n
Surinder and others; 2005 (1) TAC 270 (P&H), it was observed that<\/p>\n
tractor means a motor vehicle which is not itself constructed to carry any<\/p>\n
load other than (the equipments used for the purpose) or propulsion but<\/p>\n
excludes a road roller.\n<\/p>\n
      On a perusal of the definition of word ‘tractor’ shows that the tractor<\/p>\n
itself is not able to carry any load without the equipments. Therefore, any<\/p>\n
equipments attached to the tractor is a part of the tractor and covered under<\/p>\n
the insurance policy.\n<\/p>\n
                                       -5-<\/span><\/p>\n
      In view of the above, we observed that the trailer\/trolley, which is<\/p>\n
attached with the tractor is a part of the tractor, which was duly insured from<\/p>\n
the insurance company. Hence, the insurance company cannot escape from<\/p>\n
its liability to pay compensation by taking the plea that the trailer was not<\/p>\n
separately insured.\n<\/p>\n
      But in the instant case, fact remains that at the time of accident, the<\/p>\n
trolley which was attached with the tractor was carrying the Iron Rods and<\/p>\n
Bricks for the purpose of construction of a room to cover the pakki boring as<\/p>\n
admitted by the appellant in paragraph-3 of the affidavit. Transportation of<\/p>\n
iron rods and bricks is certainly not an agricultural activity. The tractor was<\/p>\n
insured only for the purpose of agricultural activity. The tractor will have to<\/p>\n
be used only for agricultural purpose not for any other purpose including the<\/p>\n
construction of a room. Thus, there is a violation of the terms and conditions<\/p>\n
of the insurance policy. When it is so, then we are of the view that in the<\/p>\n
instant case, the insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation<\/p>\n
and the owner of the tractor will have to pay the compensation.<\/p>\n
      Hence, we uphold the judgment and order dated 27.01.2009 passed<\/p>\n
by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Unnao in Claim Petition No. 117 of 2001,<\/p>\n
of course for different reason, as stated above. Since, the quantum is not<\/p>\n
disputed, the appellant shall deposit the balance amount, if any, before the<\/p>\n
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Unnao within a period of two months. We<\/p>\n
further direct the registry to transmit the entire amount to the Motor Accident<\/p>\n
Claims Tribunal, Unnao, and the Tribunal will proceed in terms of the award.<\/p>\n
      In view of the aforesaid, the appeal is dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
Order Date :-16.07.2010
\nVNP\/-<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Allahabad High Court Liyakat Ali vs Smt Chunni Devi on 16 July, 2010 -1- Reserved Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. – 600 of 2009 Petitioner :- Liyakat Ali Respondent :- Smt Chunni Devi Petitioner Counsel :- Rajeev Kr. Sinha *********** Hon’ble Devi Prasad Singh,J. Hon’ble Dr. Satish Chandra,J. (Delivered by Hon’ble Dr. Satish […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[9,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-25503","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-allahabad-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nLiyakat Ali vs Smt Chunni Devi on 16 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/liyakat-ali-vs-smt-chunni-devi-on-16-july-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Liyakat Ali vs Smt Chunni Devi on 16 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/liyakat-ali-vs-smt-chunni-devi-on-16-july-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-07-15T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-02-13T22:35:39+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/liyakat-ali-vs-smt-chunni-devi-on-16-july-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/liyakat-ali-vs-smt-chunni-devi-on-16-july-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Liyakat Ali vs Smt Chunni Devi on 16 July, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-07-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-02-13T22:35:39+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/liyakat-ali-vs-smt-chunni-devi-on-16-july-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1468,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Allahabad High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/liyakat-ali-vs-smt-chunni-devi-on-16-july-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/liyakat-ali-vs-smt-chunni-devi-on-16-july-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/liyakat-ali-vs-smt-chunni-devi-on-16-july-2010\",\"name\":\"Liyakat Ali vs Smt Chunni Devi on 16 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-07-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-02-13T22:35:39+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/liyakat-ali-vs-smt-chunni-devi-on-16-july-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/liyakat-ali-vs-smt-chunni-devi-on-16-july-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/liyakat-ali-vs-smt-chunni-devi-on-16-july-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Liyakat Ali vs Smt Chunni Devi on 16 July, 2010\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Liyakat Ali vs Smt Chunni Devi on 16 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/liyakat-ali-vs-smt-chunni-devi-on-16-july-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Liyakat Ali vs Smt Chunni Devi on 16 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/liyakat-ali-vs-smt-chunni-devi-on-16-july-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-07-15T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-02-13T22:35:39+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/liyakat-ali-vs-smt-chunni-devi-on-16-july-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/liyakat-ali-vs-smt-chunni-devi-on-16-july-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Liyakat Ali vs Smt Chunni Devi on 16 July, 2010","datePublished":"2010-07-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-02-13T22:35:39+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/liyakat-ali-vs-smt-chunni-devi-on-16-july-2010"},"wordCount":1468,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Allahabad High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/liyakat-ali-vs-smt-chunni-devi-on-16-july-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/liyakat-ali-vs-smt-chunni-devi-on-16-july-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/liyakat-ali-vs-smt-chunni-devi-on-16-july-2010","name":"Liyakat Ali vs Smt Chunni Devi on 16 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-07-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-02-13T22:35:39+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/liyakat-ali-vs-smt-chunni-devi-on-16-july-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/liyakat-ali-vs-smt-chunni-devi-on-16-july-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/liyakat-ali-vs-smt-chunni-devi-on-16-july-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Liyakat Ali vs Smt Chunni Devi on 16 July, 2010"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/25503","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=25503"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/25503\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=25503"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=25503"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=25503"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}